Dear Mr. Constantino, it is not clear to
me if when you refer to “Unified Field Theory” you understand what you
are refering to / talking about.

For instance… From a psychological
perspective, the “life space” of a process owner is the combination of
all the factors that influences a person's behavior at any time. The
interactions between process owner, his/her behavior and the environment
make up a dynamic field, which means that the state of any part of the
field depends on every other part of it. (Martin, 2003). There have been
numerous efforts to quantify such interactions.

From a physical
perspective, a “field” describes the interaction of objects through
field equations. For instance a gravitational field.

Your “Toyota KATA
Unified Field Theory” seems to describe solely the interaction of a
process owner with several other “target oportunities”. But, what about
the rest of the process owners in the organization? Could you explain
the gravitational field of the solar system by describing solely the
interaction between sun and earth? Could you explain such a field by
neglecting the fact that other planets are turning around a sun which is
also moving within a galaxy? And what about the dynamics of the galaxy?
on and on…

It is highly questionable that the election of an
individual “target state” can be wisely made considering indivual
process owners. What are the consequences of achieving a “target-state”
for the rest of the organization? This is not explained by KATA. Target
States are per definition contrary to the notion of an inter-dependent
reality inherent to the nature of organizations / field theory.

Until
you don’t provide a quantifiable approach that describes such systemic
interactions, you will not have a “unified field theory”. Until you do
not provide equations that describe these interactions you will have
nothing at all.

For this reasons, chances are that the Toyota KATA and a
“Unified Field Theory”, based on the notion of “Target States” such as
described by Mr. Rother, becomes a Clay-Feet-Giant unable to create the
necessary conditions for alignment.

For these reasons (and some more)
is KATA, as described by M. Rother, not the correct approach to create
organizational alignment and cannot be used as backbone of Hoshin Kanri.

You can contact me under @h4lean in twitter. Happy to continue the
lean hard talk.

Best Regards, J Villalba

Martin, John Levi (July
2003). "What Is Field Theory?". American Journal of Sociology. 109 (1):
1–49